Grabben Gullen residents Clare and John Seligman hoped that the energy provider would consider alternatives to its infrastructure plans to install four power poles along Rose Street.

The proposed high voltage wires and poles would run directly along the northern boundary of the Seligman property ruining their picturesque views.

Read also:

Their concern is the infrastructure would negatively affect their lifestyle, outlook, and value of their residence and land.

"It is unspoiled country and must be preserved," Mr Seligman said.

An energy connection via the new poles would supply one residence with electricity. However, the provider told Mr Seligman in correspondence it would ensure future expansion and increases the network's reliability.

Mr Seligman, a construction professional, has suggested several alternatives to the proposed plan. Including an underground connection arrangement.

However, correspondence showed the alternatives were rejected for being a "more costly method of construction" due to "further augmentation and also civil components".

The provider would not respond to questions about the specific customer citing privacy between the customer and Essential Energy.

However, before beginning any network building Essential Energy would consider options including underground power, composite poles, or stand alone power systems, a spokesperson said.

"As part of the project design, Essential Energy consults and engages with impacted members of the community and considers suggested alternatives against the same criteria."

Essential Energy said that undergrounding powerlines across their electricity network would be costly to build and maintain, and it would risk timely power restoration during faults.

Currently, five per cent of the electricity network is underground.

"Primarily located in urban subdivisions where underground power is standard, and is paid for by developers, with the assets gifted to Essential Energy to maintain," a spokesperson for Essential Energy said.

The 2018-19 annual report showed that overhead powerlines reach 183,612 kilometres, or the equivalent of driving around Australia 13 times.

Undergrounding the power network would reduce exposure to extreme weather, the cost of vegetation management. It would also be more aesthetically pleasing. And faults would be less frequent.

However, the provider maintained that the costs to build an underground network would be significantly higher than building an overhead network.

"These costs would need to be passed back to customers," a spokesperson said.

"Our network is designed to encompass a range of factors, primarily balancing a safe and reliable power supply with cost efficiency.

"While overhead powerlines are exposed to weather, undergrounding the power network is less intrusive and faults less frequent these faults, however, are harder to find and often more complex to repair, resulting in longer restoration times for affected customers."

The provider said that during design assessments for network building and upgrades that underground power is considered.

Have your say in the form below.